Australia House, London, 13 November 1964
Private
There are many things I would like to tell you about, but standing as you are on the threshold of yet another election campaign you probably will neither have the time nor the inclination to read very much. I would, however, like to say a little about the few Ministers that in my short time as High Commissioner I have had the opportunity of meeting.
I found Harold Wilson very civil when I called on him a fortnight ago, and presented your letter. He spoke admiringly of you, and as I have mentioned now in two telegrams, appreciates your advice to him over Southern Rhodesia. He told me that he proposed to proceed in government as if he had a majority of 40 or 50, and he gave me the impression that he would play the game hard. He certainly has plenty of self-confidence, and a self-assurance which a wiser man would not reveal so plainly. From what the Queen told me he made the same impression on her. When she said to him ‘Mr. Wilson, can you form an administration?’, he replied ‘Yes, of course I can. Bob Menzies carried on for two years with a majority of only 1; I have 5’. Not really a very respectful way to address one’s Sovereign, and the way the Queen told the story I think she felt that he could have expressed himself a little differently!
I took it upon myself to say to Wilson that we would be pleased if some time in the future he would visit Australia, and that irrespective of politics he would receive a warm welcome. He replied that he had already been there–as a boy of 10 when he visited relatives in Perth. He seemed to think I should have known that. He said he had a good recollection of his time there, and of the Kalgoorlie Goldfields. But I do not think he has any intention of coming out to us soon.
I expressed the hope to Wilson that he would try to follow a more positive Commonwealth policy, especially towards the old Commonwealth countries, than his predecessors. He was quite emphatic that he would do so, and referred me to a speech he made in the House of Commons on the 6th February 1963.1 As to the 15% surcharge, he repeated to me what he and others had already said oftimes that the measures were only temporary, and would be removed as soon as possible.2
He then had a talk about Oxford days (you will remember that after taking his degree he was a don at Jesus for a while) and I pulled his leg about half his Cabinet being Oxford men. Actually, this latter circumstance will, I think, prove a useful bridge between my rather Conservative views and the Government with which I shall have to associate over here.
My next call was on Arthur Bottomley, the new Commonwealth Secretary.3 He is a very different type of man from Wilson. I cannot remember whether you told me you had met him or not. He is not an intellectual, and could easily be the sort of honest-to-God Labour man that I remember being in the Australian Labour Party when I was young. We had a good talk for three-quarters of an hour, and l believe we immediately established an accord. He seems honest, and is modest. He confessed that although he had visited many Commonwealth countries, he had never been to Australia, and that Australia was first on his list. So I would not be surprised if he came out to us next year. Again, as with Wilson, I assured him of the pleasure this would give my Government (I hope you agree with this approach: it seems to me that the more leading British politicians we can attract to Australia the greater their understanding will be of our problems and points of view). We had quite a long talk, at my instigation, about the Common Market, and the new Government’s likely attitude towards it. Although he spoke praisingly of Sandys, he was critical of the previous Government’s handling of the Common Market negotiations in relation to ourselves. Bottomley admitted that earlier he was very pro-European, but said that he would follow the policies of Gaitskell and Wilson in trying to bring about a much closer Commonwealth association.
Amongst the various things l said to him, l urged him, after Bill Oliver came home next year, to send out to us as High Commissioner not necessarily a career man but someone who had a sense of public relations, who could speak well, and who would try to make Australians realise that Britain was not simply a country of antiquities and beautiful scenery but an ever self-regenerating nation. I added that even if they could not spare a Minister, on account of their Parliamentary situation, at least they should try to find someone of eminence who had the capacity to tell the British story in a way that would appeal to the younger generation of Australians.
I have met him several times since, and I am sure that he and I will get on well together. This, at least, is a good beginning with the Minister whom, presumably, I shall have to deal with the most.
Another contact I have made is with Denis Healey, the new Minister of Defence. He is a most likeable man socially. I think he is a little younger than myself, was at Balliol, and possesses quiet, agreeable manners. He has none of Wilson’s assertiveness and over confidence. On the contrary he has a good deal of personal charm. He, too, assured me—this was his phrase—that ‘the Labour Government aims to revitalise the Commonwealth’. He gave me just the faintest impression that he thought we could do more for ourselves on the Defence side. If am right, he would have read your excellent speech on the new Defence arrangements with approval.4
I went to the House of Commons the day before yesterday to hear the Budget. The only redeeming feature was Callaghan himself. I expect you know him personally, so I will not presume to tell you anything about him, except that I could not help but admire his Parliamentary presence, diction, and performance in the House. As a Budget ostensibly designed to correct quickly the British trade imbalance it was one of the most specious pieces of reasoning I have ever heard. If he had honestly said that this was the first instalment of Labour’s socialising policy, at least it would have been a frank expression of aims. I must admit to you that I felt so irritated with the arguments he was expounding that I found myself interjecting now and then—very improper for a High Commissioner, and a tendency which must be rigorously curbed. Afterwards I had an overwhelming desire just to be able to sit in the House and answer his speech straightaway. Don’t you think there is much to be said for the House of Commons practice of continuing the debate immediately, whilst one’s blood is up? From what I hear, Alec Home5 did quite well later in the afternoon.
On the Conservative side, I have had some revealing talks with Peter Carrington, and also Rab Butler.6 One night, at Peter’s house, before the Queen’s Diplomatic reception, both of them let themselves go. Rab gave me the impression that he is still ambitious. He spoke nicely about Alec, and thought that his speech on the address-in-reply was one of the best he had ever made. But he was rather critical of his having called so many into the Shadow Cabinet. Peter, on his part, is pessimistic about the future. He thinks that Wilson is aiming for another election in the spring, and that Labour will win it.7 Butler does not altogether agree with this. Incidentally—and this may be licentious gossip—the Carringtons aver that Wilson’s Personal Private Secretary, Mrs. Williams, is his mistress, and that she has been installed in the room next to him at No.10.
The Conservatives generally give the feeling of being rather sore about their defeat.8 However, adversity benefits us all. I have never known Duncan Sandys to be so cordial, so gracious, so forthcoming, as since he went out of office. Whenever I meet him now he is positively charming. This is a very different Duncan from not so long ago. Alec Home looks marvellously well. He is just incredibly young in appearance, and after the Opening of Parliament he told me that only that morning he had received a most delightful letter from you which obviously gave him a lot of pleasure.
We are gradually settling in to Stoke Lodge.9 I have written to Jack Bunting and asked him to let me have some money to bring the place up to the standard it should be for an official house. I have hung some of my pictures in it, and have bought a number of 17th and 18th century pieces of furniture for the hall, drawing room, and library. We have already improved the lights, and Mary is fast reorganising all the domestic quarters. I think now we shall have enough room for our children, as I have turned the gardener out of the cottage in the garden, and this we shall use for a butler and cook—when we can get them. I still have not found a house in the country to my liking. Earlier in the year we looked at 10, but only one was a possibility, and it was too expensive and not really large enough.
As to Australia House, I am enjoying trying to get a grip on the complexities of the administration. I am going to try to make the whole place warmer and friendlier in its appearance. When you are over next year I hope to have something to show you in that respect. Allen Brown10 has been extraordinarily kind and helpful to me; as for Cumming,11I evoke smiles from him now and again nowadays, so the ice seems to be breaking.
Please forgive a much longer letter than I intended. Obviously, whenever there is anything I feel you ought to know immediately I will send a telegram. Good luck to you in the Senate campaign. I think your Defence statement is courageous. As I have told you in a telegram three days ago, it has been well received here, and I am glad to know that the Australian press is supporting you.
P.S. Peter Carrington’s nickname for Bottomley is BUM LEY.
1 The date was 11 February 1963 and the occasion a debate in the House of Commons about Britain’s EEC negotiations. Wilson attacked Macmillan’s government, describing ‘the accumulated totality of vital national and Commonwealth interests already surrendered by the Government’ as a ‘national humiliation’ (House of Commons Debates, 1962–63, vol. 671, cols 961–79). As leader of the Opposition and then during his early years as Prime Minister, Wilson supported an expansion of Commonwealth trade. He saw this not simply as a panacea for some of Britain’s economic problems in the early 1960s, but also as an opportunity for Britain to pursue abroad policies in relation to developing countries which were socialist on the one hand and internationalist on the other. Some eighteen months before the 1964 election, he put forward a ten-point programme for the Commonwealth. The first five points covered the development of the Commonwealth in an economic context. He advocated regular meetings to work through the development and capital investment programmes of each Commonwealth country, Britain asking for a specific preference in awarding Commonwealth contracts (a ‘buy British’ programme). He suggested guaranteed markets in Britain for Commonwealth primary products, and an expansion of British industrial capacity by incentives to the private sector and the creation of new publicly owned industrial establishments in order to fulfil Commonwealth requirements for development capital. Finally, he urged worldwide commodity agreements to stabilise primary prices, and an expansion in the volume of world liquidity for financing world trade; Britain, the US and other friendly countries would take the initiative. Such ideas were viewed by officials in the economic departments of Whitehall as a throwback to the economic policies of the Attlee Labour Government at the end of World War II (UKNA: CO 852/2263; also CAB 134/1777, EER(63)75, 7 June 1963), and Commonwealth leaders (especially Menzies and Lester Pearson of Canada) displayed little enthusiasm for them at a Prime Ministers’ Conference held in London in June 1965. For further documentation, see ESAC, Part Ill.
2 Almost the first act of the new Labour Government was to receive from the Treasury a report on the economic situation facing Britain. The picture painted was far from encouraging and indeed worse than Labour had expected in opposition. The deficit on the balance of payments was forecast to be £800 million in 1964 and £450 million in 1965. Even with four per cent growth in succeeding years, tax increases would be needed to fund existing long–term public expenditure programmes and there would be a persistent balance of payments deficit of between £200 million and £300 million. Rejecting both deflation and devaluation as solutions, the Treasury advocated a strategy designed to increase industrial efficiency and competitiveness, to tackle the underlying causes of inflation, and to reduce expenditure for non-productive purposes. Singled out in the latter context were defence and prestige projects like the Concorde supersonic aircraft. One of the first measures announced by the government was a fifteen per cent surcharge on all imports except foodstuffs, raw tobacco, and basic raw materials. This was a temporary measure and it was lifted in 1966.
3 Bottomley was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commonwealth Affairs from 11 August 1966), 1964–66.
4 See Document 27.
5 Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Conservative Prime Minister in succession to Macmillan, 1963–64, and Leader of the Opposition, 1964—65, when replaced by Edward Heath. He was Foreign Secretary in Heath’s Conservative Government, 1970–74.
6 Architect of the 1944 Education Act in the UK, R.A. Butler served at various times as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary in the Conservative Governments, 1951–64. He was Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State for Central Africa (Rhodesia), 1962–63. His aspirations to lead the Conservative Party were never realised. He left politics to become Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 1965 to 1978.
7 Wilson called a second election in March 1966 and Labour was returned with an overall majority of ninety-seven.
8 Menzies wrote to Douglas-Home, the defeated Conservative leader at the UK election in 1964, about the prospects for the new Labour Government. He believed Wilson would not last a year and commented: ‘Wilson is an adroit politician and an extremely clever and subtle debater. But he has some indifferent material at his disposal, and under pressure, played with some reticence but with persistence the defects of his Government will increasingly appear’ (NLA: Menzies Papers, MS 4936/1, folder 82, box 10, Menzies to Douglas-Home, 23 October 1964).
9 The Australian High Commissioner’s official residence, in the Kensington area of central London, close to the Albert Memorial.
10 Sir Allen Brown, Australian Deputy High Commissioner, London, 1959–65.
11 W.R. Cumming, Australian Acting Deputy High Commissioner, London, 1960–66, 1970–73 (various periods).
[NLA: MS 4936/1, BOX 10 FOLDER 84]